RFR: 8369129: Raster createPackedRaster methods specification clean up [v6]

[Jayathirth D V]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 17:23:42 GMT, Phil Race <prr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Updates the specification of Raster.createPackedRaster(..) methods and also the implementation of these to explicitly check the specified conditions rather than relying on them being passed up from some other API.
>> 
>> Also one each of the createInterleavedRaster(..) and createBandedRaster(..) methods have an update
>> 
>> createInterleavedRaster(...) to address that even if WxH does not exceed Integer.MAX_VALUE, the storage needed still might.
>> 
>> createBandedRaster(..) to address 
>> - a not explicitly specified or tested case that WxH must not overflow
>> - a not explicitly tested NPE case if bandMasks is null. This was relying on a de-reference and the actual check for it being null would have thrown the wrong exception type (AIOBE) - meaning not the one NPE actually specified and thrown.
>> There's an unfortunate oddity with this that of bankIndices is null it specifies and throws AIOBE, but I didn't think it worth changing either of these to make them consistent.
>> 
>> The existing CreateRasterExceptionTest.java is updated to verify all these assertions.
>> In almost all cases the behaviour is unchanged, it is just now properly specified and verified up front.
>> 
>> There are only 2 sub-tests which would fail on JDK 25
>> The test can also be run (and pass) there without this fix because it explicitly handles those 2 cases which are reasonable behavioral changes
>> - One for the  createInterleavedRaster() update where the unchecked case could end up causing a NegativeArraySizeException. This seems like a merited change.
>> - One for an unlikely case where if an app specified 0 app to createPackedRaster, divide by zero would happen.
>> 
>> The CSR is now ready for review https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8369131
>
> Phil Race has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   8369129

Marked as reviewed by jdv (Reviewer).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27627#pullrequestreview-3393159161